Jump to content
BANGKOK 24 March 2019 11:42


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by attrayant

  1. Then I suggest you direct your bile at those people. Until we have Mueller's findings, I am content to rest my case on the prima facie evidence. And unlike you, I am not going to blind myself to Trump's other numerous acts of malfeasance.
  2. Are they? I can see you're quite "new" here, but it's customary to support your statements with evidence. Otherwise it's clear to everyone that you're just imbulbitating.
  3. You just can't stop, can you? I get it - that's your safe space. Cling to it like a child's treasured blanky.
  4. I doubt the author of this post will return to back it up, but... Do you three really think "news outlets" should be charged with lying to congress?
  5. Recording devices exist. Romney's "47% speech" was closed to the media too. I think it was a waiter who recorded it.
  6. Nice revisionist history there. No, it wasn't. Comey's firing was merely the spark that ignited the special counsel's appointment. From day-one the scope of the probe was to expose Trump's stink of corruption, with conspiracy being only one of the things Mueller was to look into. Rosenstein wrote his letter using the Comey firing as the justification, but included clauses permitting Mueller to look at anything else he can find.
  7. There you go again. Every time you bring up the "but what about no-collusion" angle, you use the phrase to shield yourself and Trump. If collusion can't be proved, then nothing else matters right? Put the shield down at face reality. Al Capone did more than tax fraud, just as Trump has more barnacles clinging to him than conspiracy. He's the sheep in the burr patch.
  8. Stop hiding behind that phrase like a scared little girl.
  9. Do you also think Al Capone was vindicated of mob activity by his conviction on tax evasion charges?
  10. Look at all the witches we caught! https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/robert-mueller-everyone-charged-russia-investigation
  11. Which statement is wrong? That directing an illegal campaign finance scheme is a crime? Or that Trump directed such a scheme? If the latter, tell it to the judge - literally. In sentencing the president’s former fixer, federal judge William H. Pauley III said in open court that Trump had directed his then-lawyer to commit a federal felony. This was in some respects a formality, a confirmation of a conclusion that prosecutors and the United States Probation Office had reached last week. But while it might have been a formality, it was important. No one in that courtroom, including the judge, disagreed that Trump directed Cohen to commit crimes. The next few sentences are even more telling: "Trump has downplayed his role, calling the payments a “simple private transaction” and, “only a CIVIL CASE” that would result in liability for Cohen and not him." By downplaying his role, he has admitted to having a role. In other words, sure, okay I did something but it wasn't all that bad. Just a civil crime, okay? So if you must continue the "you're wrong" line of defense, please go start telling it to Trump who willingly downplayed his role in the scheme, instead of denying his participation in it. Frequent Trump defender Andrew McCarthy on Fox "News": Why Trump is likely to be indicted by Manhattan US Attorney
  12. You've been a member for 43 days. How do you know what we've been assuming?
  13. If you don't like that phrase, then I'll spell it out for you: The SDNY made it clear that “individual 1” directed an illegal campaign finance scheme. That is a crime.
  14. You haven't read anything, have you? Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator. That means the only reason he has not been indicted is because of the office he holds. He has done something worthy of an indictment, but won't be indicted because of a technicality.
  15. More than a dozen have been indicted/charged/convicted/sentenced, so this was anything but a sham. Actual crimes were found and actual criminals punished. The US already does a piss-poor job of catching white collar criminals, but you want to make sure it gets even worse?
  16. If nothing sticks? Do you need a reminder of how corrupt this administration has been, how many Trump confidants have been indicted/charged/convicted/sentenced, and that Trump is already an unindicted co-conspirator? I think Trump is the one who owes the American people an apology for his numerous abandoned promises and laughable "I always hire the best people" shtick. If nothing sticks... please. Trump already looks like a sheep that walked through a bur patch. A confirmation of conspiracy from Mueller would just be one more bur.
  17. I think you've misunderstood what this sentence means. It means Barr must tell Congress whether he or his predecessors overseeing the investigation opposed any significant step that Mueller sought to take. These are called declinations - things that Mueller or his supervisors decided not to do, or Mueller may have been overridden by his superiors, even though it seemed like they could have or should have. So, for example, if Mueller wanted to indict somebody, but Rosenstein or Barr said no - that would be something to report under this clause.
  18. A lot of people here seem pretty confident, but of course you're just repeating your deeply-held beliefs. Like this: Perhaps you are aware of the Justice Department's policy of not indicting a sitting president? It has come up only a few hundred times in recent discussions. So singing the "Trump not indicted" song isn't exactly you making risky bet. Trump is already an unindicted co-conspirator precisely because of this JD policy. If not for the office he holds, he would have been indicted. I'm not sure what kind of a victory you think that is. He did something worthy of indictment, but he's being shielded from said indictment on a technicality. Um, congratulations?
  19. Wapo: Trump just nixed a major argument against releasing the Mueller report "President Trump said Wednesday for the first time that he would be okay with making the Mueller report public. And in doing so, he nixed a major argument against its release."
  20. Some bank will probably jump on this as a service offering to retirees - some sort of account where the balance is protected and can't drop below 800K during the crucial months (two prior and three post-renewal, then 400K the rest of the year). Just meaning you can't accidentally make a transaction or withdrawal that causes you to unknowingly put your extension of stay in jeopardy.
  21. Right - yes I actually did read the OP. I'm just pointing out that different offices are following different rules. Here's a scan of it:
  22. OK, retirement just like usual. Just couldn't figure out why they have us so many lines to use.
  23. At CW in Bangkok they are handing out an informational paper showing the new two-month-before (not three) rule, just FYI. I got a copy of it.
  • Create New...